Learning teams in higher education executing a collaborative assignment are not always effective. To remedy this, there is a need to determine and understand the variables that influence team effectiveness. This study aimed at developing a conceptual framework, based on research in various contexts on team effectiveness and specifically team and task awareness. Core aspects of the framework were tested to establish its value for future experiments on influencing team effectiveness. Results confirmed the importance of shared mental models, and to some extent mutual performance monitoring for learning teams to become effective, but also of interpersonal trust as being conditional for building adequate shared mental models. Apart from the importance of team and task awareness for team effectiveness it showed that learning teams in higher education tend to be pragmatic by focusing primarily on task aspects of performance and not team aspects. Further steps have to be taken to validate this conceptual framework on team effectiveness.
DOCUMENT
Teams have the potential to offer greater adaptability, productivity and creativity than any one individual can offer and provide more complex, innovative and comprehensive solutions. This necessitates sharing and developing of knowledge at a team-level, fueling the thinking about and research on team learning. This chapter expands the topic of team learning by synthesizing insights from research on collaborative learning in the learning sciences and on teamwork in the organization sciences. In doing so, it builds on the Integrative Model of Team Learning to present recent developments in empirical work on team learning. Significant phenomena are elaborated: with regard to team learning processes, the role of conflicts and team reflexivity is explained. Next, the role of leadership in teams with regard to team learning is demonstrated. In relation to the emergent states, this chapter focuses on two phenomena that are heavily studied in team research in general, but also show to be significant in describing team learning: psychological safety and team knowledge. Lastly, four research challenges for the field of team learning are identified. The first discusses the consequences of conceptualizing team learning as complex and dynamic for measurement and analysis. The second relates to the fact that current research mainly presents a descriptive or explanatory account of team learning and does not indicate what it implies for interventionist theories. The third concerns the awareness that (the effectiveness of) team learning processes differ depending on the type of task that the team is dealing with. The fourth and last issue zooms in on questions how to prepare the individual team member for team learning.
DOCUMENT
Background: Non-technical errors, such as insufficient communication or leadership, are a major cause of medical failures during trauma resuscitation. Research on staffing variation among trauma teams on teamwork is still in their infancy. In this study, the extent of variation in trauma team staffing was assessed. Our hypothesis was that there would be a high variation in trauma team staffing. Methods: Trauma team composition of consecutive resuscitations of injured patients were evaluated using videos. All trauma team members that where part of a trauma team during a trauma resuscitation were identified and classified during a one-week period. Other outcomes were number of unique team members, number of new team members following the previous resuscitation and new team members following the previous resuscitation in the same shift (Day, Evening, Night). Results: All thirty-two analyzed resuscitations had a unique trauma team composition and 101 unique members were involved. A mean of 5.71 (SD 2.57) new members in teams of consecutive trauma resuscitations was found, which was two-third of the trauma team. Mean team members present during trauma resuscitation was 8.38 (SD 1.43). Most variation in staffing was among nurses (32 unique members), radiology technicians (22 unique members) and anesthetists (19 unique members). The least variation was among trauma surgeons (3 unique members) and ER physicians (3 unique members). Conclusion: We found an extremely high variation in trauma team staffing during thirty-two consecutive resuscitations at our level one trauma center which is incorporated in an academic teaching hospital. Further research is required to explore and prevent potential negative effects of staffing variation in trauma teams on teamwork, processes and patient related outcomes.
DOCUMENT
There is a wealth of research on computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) that is neglected in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) research. CSCW research is concerned with contextual factors, however, that may strongly influence collaborative learning processes as well, such as task characteristics, team formation, team members’ abilities and characteristics, and role assignment within a team. Building on a critical analysis of the degree to which research on CSCW translates to CSCL, this article discusses the mediating variables of teamwork processes and the dynamics of learning-teams. Based on work-team effectiveness models, it presents a framework with key variables mediating learning-team effectiveness in either face-to-face or online settings within the perspective of learning-team development.
DOCUMENT
Using a multi-wave, multi-level design, this study unravels the impact of subjective (dis)similarities in teams on team effectiveness. Based on optimal distinctiveness theory and the social inclusion model, we assume combined effects of individual and shared perceptions of supplementary and complementary person–team fit on affective and performance-based outcomes. Furthermore, at the team level, we expect this relationship to be mediated by team cohesion. In a sample of 121 participants (across 30 teams), we found that teams in which members share perceptions of high supplementary as well as high complementary fit outperform those in which they do not. In addition, members of such teams report higher levels of team satisfaction and viability. Both of these occur through positive effects on the cohesion within the team. Thereby, our results support the central tenet of the social inclusion model. At the individual level, this enhancing effect of the interaction was not supported, providing additional evidence for considering perceived person–team fit as a collective construct.
LINK
University teacher teams can work toward educational change through the process of team learning behavior, which involves sharing and discussing practices to create new knowledge. However, teachers do not routinely engage in learning behavior when working in such teams and it is unclear how leadership support can overcome this problem. Therefore, this study examines when team leadership behavior supports teacher teams in engaging in learning behavior. We studied 52 university teacher teams (281 respondents) involved in educational change, resulting in two key findings. First, analyses of multiple leadership types showed that team learning behavior was best supported by a shared transformational leadership style that challenges the status quo and stimulates team members’ intellect. Mutual transformational encouragement supported team learning more than the vertical leadership source or empowering and initiating structure styles of leadership. Second, moderator analyses revealed that task complexity influenced the relationship between vertical empowering team leadership behavior and team learning behavior. Specifically, this finding suggests that formal team leaders who empower teamwork only affected team learning behavior when their teams perceived that their task was not complex. These findings indicate how team learning behavior can be supported in university teacher teams responsible for working toward educational change. Moreover, these findings are unique because they originate from relating multiple team leadership types to team learning behavior, examining the influence of task complexity, and studying this in an educational setting.
DOCUMENT
University teacher teams can work toward educational change through the process of team learning behavior, which involves sharing and discussing practices to create new knowledge. However, teachers do not routinely engage in learning behavior when working in such teams and it is unclear how leadership support can overcome this problem. Therefore, this study examines when team leadership behavior supports teacher teams in engaging in learning behavior. We studied 52 university teacher teams (281 respondents) involved in educational change, resulting in two key findings. First, analyses of multiple leadership types showed that team learning behavior was best supported by a shared transformational leadership style that challenges the status quo and stimulates team members’ intellect. Mutual transformational encouragement supported team learning more than the vertical leadership source or empowering and initiating structure styles of leadership. Second, moderator analyses revealed that task complexity influenced the relationship between vertical empowering team leadership behavior and team learning behavior. Specifically, this finding suggests that formal team leaders who empower teamwork only affected team learning behavior when their teams perceived that their task was not complex. These findings indicate how team learning behavior can be supported in university teacher teams responsible for working toward educational change. Moreover, these findings are unique because they originate from relating multiple team leadership types to team learning behavior, examining the influence of task complexity, and studying this in an educational setting. https://www.scienceguide.nl/2021/06/leren-van-docentteams-vraagt-om-gezamenlijk-leiderschap/
LINK
In literature, co-teaching is mostly defined as an instrumental and pedagogical means delivered by collaborating special and regular teachers, from which students with and without special educational needs benefit in regular schools. The importance of a shared vision on the part of members of co-teaching teams as to what they consider as good education for students is not mentioned in definitions of co-teaching. The authors argue that sense-making by reflection about what can be considered as good education – good teaching and good learning – is essential when co-teachers want to understand or change their practice or relationship with their partner. We reviewed 17 articles about co-teaching teams’ professional development and identified that challenges to co-teachers’ professionalisation mostly were directed to interpersonal and normative aspects of development in co-teaching teams. We elaborate on five distinguished movements that can bring about change in teacher professionalism. These movements correspond to the challenges retrieved from the literature review and can be used to contribute to move toward a new perspective on professionalism of co-teachers. A contemporary definition of co-teaching is proposed because former definitions do not suffice to express the value of constructing a shared vision on good teaching and learning. We argue that team-reflection is the missing link in terms of enhancing normative professionalism of co-teaching teams and recommend that further research should be conducted to value team-reflection as a means to overcome challenges of co-teaching teams.
LINK
Background: The number of people with multiple chronic conditions requiring primary care services increases. Professionals from different disciplines collaborate and coordinate care to deal with the complex health care needs. There is lack of information on current practices regarding interprofessional team (IPT) meetings. Objectives: This study aimed to improve our understanding of the process of interprofessional collaboration in primary care team meetings in the Netherlands by observing the current practice and exploring personal opinions. Methods. Qualitative study involving observations of team meetings and interviews with participants. Eight different IPT meetings (n = 8) in different primary care practices were observed by means of video recordings. Experiences were explored by conducting individual semi-structured interviews (n = 60) with participants (i.e. health care professionals from different disciplines) of the observed team meetings. The data were analysed by means of content analysis. Results: Most participants expressed favourable opinions about their team meetings. However, observations showed that team meetings were more or less hectic, and lacked a clear structure and team coordinator or leader. There appears to be a discrepancy between findings from observations and interviews. From the interviews, four main themes were extracted: (1) Team structure and composition, (2) Patient-centredness, (3) Interaction and (4) Attitude and motivation. Conclusion: IPT meetings could benefit from improvements in structure, patient-centredness and leadership by the chairpersons. Given the discrepancy between observations and interviews, it would appear useful to improve team members’ awareness of aspects that could be improved before training them in dealing with specific challenges.
DOCUMENT
Background: The number of people with multiple chronic conditions increases as a result of ageing. To deal with the complex health-care needs of these patients, it is important that health-care professionals collaborate in interprofessional teams. To deliver patient-centred care, it is often recommended to include the patient as a member of the team. Objective: To gain more insight into how health-care professionals and patients, who are used to participate in interprofessional team meetings, experience and organize patient participation in the team meetings. Methods: A qualitative study including observations of meetings (n=8), followed by semi-structured interviews with participating health-care professionals (n=8), patients and/or relatives (n=11). Professionals and patients were asked about their experiences of patient participation immediately after the team meetings. Results from both observations and interviews were analysed using content analysis. Results: The findings show a variety of influencing factors related to patient participation that can be divided into five categories: (i) structure and task distribution, (ii) group composition, (iii) relationship between professionals and patients or relatives, (iv) patients’ characteristics and (v) the purpose of the meeting. Conclusion: Patient participation during team meetings was appreciated by professionals and patients. A tailored approach to patient involvement during team meetings is preferable. When considering the presence of patients in team meetings, it is recommended to pay attention to patients’ willingness and ability to participate, and the necessary information shared before the meeting. Participating patients seem to appreciate support and preparation for the meeting.
DOCUMENT
